NZ gun laws

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › NZ gun laws

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201432 19-Mar-2019 10:47

As long as humans want to hurt each other, they will find a way. I support the ban of semi automatic weapons, however I was in the UK immediately post the London Bridge attacks. It was terrible. They usd a Van and Knives. Death toll signficantly less, I do agree, but it was still absoloutely horrific.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2201484 19-Mar-2019 11:13

I admit I know nothing about guns, but as far as I can see, eliminating semi-automatic weapons and maybe even more does not make impossible the things they are said to be useful for, such as pest control. There are acceptable alternatives for eliminating rabbits and other pests. Maybe not as much fun for those who like to use these weapons, but some sacrifices have to be made. The cost of not having these things is far, far less than the now-proven cost of them being available to the monsters amongst us.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201496 19-Mar-2019 11:24

Rikkitic:

I admit I know nothing about guns, but as far as I can see, eliminating semi-automatic weapons and maybe even more does not make impossible the things they are said to be useful for, such as pest control. There are acceptable alternatives for eliminating rabbits and other pests. Maybe not as much fun for those who like to use these weapons, but some sacrifices have to be made. The cost of not having these things is far, far less than the now-proven cost of them being available to the monsters amongst us.

Most owners would not have an issue. And while I support anything that can help, in AUS it doesn't make any difference. There was a lengthy and clear downturn prior to their gun law changes. My opinion is its the same here. 99.99999% of users are not the issue, but also, anything that might help a little throw it at it. We need to find these people and remove them from circulation. Anything else, no matter how well intentioned will not help a great deal. Ironically as we are a global IT world, many want IT protected, and this means the deviants can proliferate much easier and are still behind a lot of protection of identity

vulcannz

436 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2201536 19-Mar-2019 12:37

Fred99:

vulcannz:

Those are very much cherry picked stats, have a read here: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

Aussie homicide rates peaked in 91, then started a steady decline.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-54d2a1fd9a42f7ddd9a172ac9266bddd.webp

Yes I know that, but that apparent decline may also be statistically insignificant.

I'll concede that I'm biased. Other things have changed since the mid '90s too, statistics on # of sales to random customers of explosive grade ammonium nitrate may have fallen, but nobody (I hope) wants to liberalise sale of that back to what it was!

From NZ's point of view, since Aramoana (where semi autos incl one .223 calibre MSSA was used), sample size of 1 large mass shooting won't allow for any valid data to "prove" anything. But this killing was terrorism, the scale of it was massive, and it's probably quite reasonable to conclude with the information we have now that easy access to weapons was one of the factors that attracted a foreign terrorist to choose NZ. Nobody wants it to ever happen again, so eliminating semi-automatic weapons from circulation is an absolute no-brainer.

Here is a Melbourne University study on the buyback: https://ssaa.org.au/assets/press-releases/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf

The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

(NFA = National Firearms Agreement 1996/1997).

I must stress I am NOT opposed to either a ban on Semi's or a restriction to E-cat for all semis.

I just like to make sure facts are correct so we make correct decisions on where we go from here (and people using terms like "Assault Rifle" drive me nuts).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2201549 19-Mar-2019 12:56

Is it possible, or even easy, to modify the kinds of semi-automatic weapons available here to operate as full automatics (like the 'bump stock' add-ons used in the USA?).

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

vulcannz

436 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2201558 19-Mar-2019 13:04

Rikkitic:

Is it possible, or even easy, to modify the kinds of semi-automatic weapons available here to operate as full automatics (like the 'bump stock' add-ons used in the USA?).

I believe they are illegal here. Doesn't mean that cannot be here, but if you were caught importing such gear you'd probably lose your license if not more.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2201559 19-Mar-2019 13:04

vulcannz:

Fred99:

vulcannz:

Those are very much cherry picked stats, have a read here: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

Aussie homicide rates peaked in 91, then started a steady decline.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-54d2a1fd9a42f7ddd9a172ac9266bddd.webp

Yes I know that, but that apparent decline may also be statistically insignificant.

I'll concede that I'm biased. Other things have changed since the mid '90s too, statistics on # of sales to random customers of explosive grade ammonium nitrate may have fallen, but nobody (I hope) wants to liberalise sale of that back to what it was!

From NZ's point of view, since Aramoana (where semi autos incl one .223 calibre MSSA was used), sample size of 1 large mass shooting won't allow for any valid data to "prove" anything. But this killing was terrorism, the scale of it was massive, and it's probably quite reasonable to conclude with the information we have now that easy access to weapons was one of the factors that attracted a foreign terrorist to choose NZ. Nobody wants it to ever happen again, so eliminating semi-automatic weapons from circulation is an absolute no-brainer.

Here is a Melbourne University study on the buyback: https://ssaa.org.au/assets/press-releases/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf

The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

(NFA = National Firearms Agreement 1996/1997).

I must stress I am NOT opposed to either a ban on Semi's or a restriction to E-cat for all semis.

I just like to make sure facts are correct so we make correct decisions on where we go from here (and people using terms like "Assault Rifle" drive me nuts).

I actually don't think deep analysis of the Aussie experience serves as good example from which to base any decision on what we should do in NZ, except as an example of when there's a political will to do it (against opposition from gun fanatics) then it can be done.

* Since Port Arthur the world has changed significantly WRT the threat from politically motivated extremists.
* the foreign terrorist who brutally killed 50 people in Otautahi on Friday 15 March 2019, chose to come to our country to commit a heinous act, and our inadequate firearms laws (vs stricter laws in Aus) were almost certainly one of the reasons he chose to do it here - not to carry out the act at home.
* I'm aware (but on balance I really don't care) that I'm using an absence of evidence (thus unprovable) argument that there hasn't been an equivalent scale terrorist attack in Aus since the NFA, and of course there are many other possible hypothesis to explain why that might be.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201561 19-Mar-2019 13:05

Rikkitic:

Is it possible, or even easy, to modify the kinds of semi-automatic weapons available here to operate as full automatics (like the 'bump stock' add-ons used in the USA?).

Im out of touch, I would doubt it, but dont quote me

With a semi the breech fires back after a shot is made, expelling the case and a new bullet springs up from the magazine and goes in. You need to pull the trigger manually for each shot. To be an automatic, there would need to be mods made in the trigger area. Maybe not so hard perhaps? I've not really heard that as any issue annecdotally. It would be difficult to manage for anyone using it for recreation.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2201564 19-Mar-2019 13:11

Rather than the Government rushing to create policy and sound bytes, start thinking these issues and the implications there-of :

"You can surrender your gun to the police at any time," Ardern said in a message to gun owners at her weekly post-Cabinet press conference.
"I've seen reports that people are in fact already doing this. I applaud that effort and if you're thinking about surrendering your weapon, I would encourage you to do so."

Then on the same day, Grant Robertson speaks on radio about investigating a buy back scheme under urgency.

Why surrender the guns now, when you could receive cash back on your semi-auto? Those that were sitting on the proverbial fence will now wait longer.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2201566 19-Mar-2019 13:12

vulcannz:

Rikkitic:

Is it possible, or even easy, to modify the kinds of semi-automatic weapons available here to operate as full automatics (like the 'bump stock' add-ons used in the USA?).

I believe they are illegal here. Doesn't mean that cannot be here, but if you were caught importing such gear you'd probably lose your license if not more.

An extremist could d/l 3d printer data to make their own bump stocks, presumably with close to no chance of being caught - unless there's adequate surveillance of net activity of extremists - which is always going to have limits.

Zeon

3916 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2201576 19-Mar-2019 13:31

With the gun buy back why do they need to be destroyed? At least ship them back to the USA for some cash?

Speedtest 2019-10-14

Ge0rge

2055 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201577 19-Mar-2019 13:31

Fred99:
An extremist could d/l 3d printer data to make their own bump stocks, presumably with close to no chance of being caught - unless there's adequate surveillance of net activity of extremists - which is always going to have limits.

I do agree with you in principle here, however having worked with 3D printing quite extensively, you would need a very good (read expensive) machine to be able to a)meet the tolerances required, b)print a strong enough iteration to take the strain of repeated firing and c) have a large enough bed to accommodate a stock. Most hobby/home machines would struggle to meet the above, and I certainly wouldn't want to have my shoulder in line with the recoil mechanism for a firearm part that hadn't been extensively tested!

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but the type of printer required would more likely be owned by a corporation as opposed to be afforded by an individual - it would also be a very long print. I'm hoping that someone else would notice a corporate machine being used for printing a stock and call the individual out for it - I certainly wouldn't want it known that my business had been used to illegally produce firearms parts! Too hopeful perhaps?

shk292

2855 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2201591 19-Mar-2019 13:39

Fred99:

An extremist could d/l 3d printer data to make their own bump stocks, presumably with close to no chance of being caught - unless there's adequate surveillance of net activity of extremists - which is always going to have limits.

Why go to all that trouble when you can hire a perfectly adequate alternative in any large town in the world?

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others. (Wikipedia)

We're not the first country in the world to experience mass murder through terrorism. Some of it involves guns; 9-11 didn't, nor Las Ramblas, nor Nice nor in fact much of the Northern Ireland "troubles", where diesel and agricultural fertiliser was a weapon of choice.

To think we're going to prevent or even reduce this by banning a certain type of firearm is in my opinion naive.

I don't own an MSSA or have any intention of ever owning one, but I think there's a slippery slope when you start deciding what people "need to possess" in the first 48 hours after a traumatic event caused by a deranged pyschopath

vulcannz

436 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2201693 19-Mar-2019 14:22

Fred99:

I actually don't think deep analysis of the Aussie experience serves as good example from which to base any decision on what we should do in NZ, except as an example of when there's a political will to do it (against opposition from gun fanatics) then it can be done.

* Since Port Arthur the world has changed significantly WRT the threat from politically motivated extremists.
* the foreign terrorist who brutally killed 50 people in Otautahi on Friday 15 March 2019, chose to come to our country to commit a heinous act, and our inadequate firearms laws (vs stricter laws in Aus) were almost certainly one of the reasons he chose to do it here - not to carry out the act at home.
* I'm aware (but on balance I really don't care) that I'm using an absence of evidence (thus unprovable) argument that there hasn't been an equivalent scale terrorist attack in Aus since the NFA, and of course there are many other possible hypothesis to explain why that might be.

We don't know he chose to commit the crimes here because of our laws. There are reports of a huge amount of illegal weapons in Australia. In the 2017 Aussie amnesty there were 57000 illegal firearms handed in, including fully automatic weapons (including machine guns) and a rocket launcher. I think it is wrong to assess the australian firearms situation on the basis of its laws alone.

I'd also like to point out the denials of mass shootings in Australia are based on redefining the standard definition of a mass shooting from 6 people or more to more than 10 people (by aussie politicians).

I think we are a softer target, and our gun laws certainly didn't help.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2201705 19-Mar-2019 14:26

shk292:

I don't own an MSSA or have any intention of ever owning one, but I think there's a slippery slope when you start deciding what people "need to possess" in the first 48 hours after a traumatic event caused by a deranged pyschopath

People keep coming up with this fake equivalence argument. Vehicles are many, many, many times more useful for more things than firearms are, but they are already being restricted to make it harder for terrorists. Places where you used to be able to drive now have barriers around them. This will increase. If the danger from terrorist drivers increases, it will increase more, despite the inconvenience this causes. There is no fundamental difference in this regard between cars and guns or anything else that can be abused to sow terror.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18